Showdown Tonight on Big-Box Stores

UPDATE: Councilmen voted May 12 to repeal the big-box rules. Read the latest on the big-box issue.

Mount Pleasant Town Council votes tonight on whether to repeal a controversial ordinance that bars big-box stores over 70,000 square feet from locating on parcels of land that are smaller than 50 acres.

The limitations have been on the books since 1996 when residents pushed for protections from massive retail development. But in July 2011, the town’s planning staff recommended the restrictions be repealed since other parts of the town’s zoning rules could fend off developments that didn’t fit in Mount Pleasant.

Back then, the repeal sailed through three boards and nearly 20 individuals voted unanimously to strike it from the town’s books. But the size limitation language appeared in two parts of the zoning plan, and council had only voted to remove it from just one place.

Now the council must decide again to remove the language, but the community's feeling on big-box stores has changed since last summer.

Those non-controversial votes were before a 300,000-square-foot development known as the Gregg Tract was proposed for 40 acres near Mount Pleasant Towne Centre. If approved, the project would feature three big-box stores on property that abuts two large neighborhoods.

Henrich Properties has since said it would pursue a scaled-back version of the project.

Even if the developer makes changes, the so-called 50-Acre Rule would never allow the project off the ground, never mind that the Gregg Tract isn't currently zoned for retail development.

TWO ISSUES
Residents equate tonight’s vote with an approval of the Gregg Tract. That’s simply not the case, and the 50-Acre Rule should be considered on its own, councilmen say.

“I’m looking at this from a larger perspective,” said Councilwoman Thomasena Stokes-Marshall, who voted in a committee meeting last week to keep the rule on the books, but now says she’s undecided. “This will have impacts all over the town, not just with the Gregg Tract. I’m keeping an open mind.”

The timing is bad, councilmen admit. Some residents speculate that the developer pressured the town to delete the 50-Acre Rule so that the project could move forward, though councilmen say that's not the case.

"We are actively being stabbed in the back," said Mike Tyson, whose home is near the Gregg Tract. "It's tough sitting back and watching the town go through all the paces, changing all their laws and rules, to give this developer everything they want."

THE VOTES
Four of the eight councilmen sampled by Patch on Monday said they are heading into Tuesday's meeting with an open mind. Councilmembers John Burn, Ken Glasson, Chris Nickels and Stokes-Marshall said they want to hear from residents one final time.

Elton Carrier and Linda Page said they will vote to keep the 50-Acre Rule on the books. Councilmen Craig Rhyne and Chris O’Neal could not be reached Monday. Mayor Billy Swails, also unavailable Monday, gets a vote on the measure.

“I’m holding fast on what I said earlier,” said Page, referring to her vote last week in a planning committee to keep the rules. “But if you would have asked me a few weeks ago, I would have said the council was going to vote to repeal it. But now I’m not so sure.”

TOUGH CHOICE
Some on the council are torn, because the 50-Acre Rule closes the door to any development that doesn’t have 50 acres of land, and that could “artificially” stifle growth, said Councilman Glasson.

“There are some valid projects that won’t ever come to the table because of this restriction,” Glasson said. “There are a lot of filters and protections before any project gets approved.”

Though the conversation has boiled down to a referendum on the Gregg Tract, that’s not really fair, said Glasson and Nickels, who say projects like the Gregg Tract wouldn't simply get the green light if the 50-Acre Rule was gone.

“I don’t think this council would approve the Gregg Tract as it stands now,” Nickels said. “But what if there was a proposal to put just one box store on that property? That might be more palatable for some people, but we can’t consider it with the current rules.”

If it wasn’t for the Gregg Tract proposal coming just months before tonight’s vote, the issue wouldn’t be this controversial, said Councilman Burn.

“I think the whole council is torn on this,” Burn said. “Is the Gregg Tract impacted by this? Yes. Is this a vote on that project? No. And it’s not the right approach to confuse the two.”

IN-FILL TREND
Town planners have pushed for development in pockets of undeveloped land within current retail and residential areas.

The town even offer perks to developers, such as allowing more density for certain residential developments, if builders buy up small tracts of connecting and make them into one larger parcel.

So from that perspective, the Gregg Tract makes sense. It’s already near a retail center on a major highway, Burn said.

“We all understand the ‘not-in-my-neighborhood’ argument,” Burn said. “But when we considered Target at Seaside Farms, people said the same thing. Now everyone loves Target.”

There are big chunks of retail land in more northern parts of Mount Pleasant, and that's where big-box stores are more appropriate, said Councilman Carrier.

"I'm hanging my hat on Carolina Park," he said. "We have 300 acres out there just for this project. The Gregg Tract is a fine project in a bad location."

The undecided councilmen say they are moved by the passion expressed by residents, and they will wait to make a decision until after they’ve heard from everyone.

“No matter how I vote on this, I’m going to make some people angry,” Nickels said. “The residents have expressed themselves in the right way. … I think this may be a close vote.”

IF YOU GO
What: Town Council's regular meeting
When: 6 p.m., Tuesday
Where: Town Council Chambers, 100 Ann Edwards Drive